The Nuclear Debate
We’ve so far avoided nuclear power generation despite the fact that we sit on some of the world’s largest uranium deposits and have a long history of uranium mining. Federal and state laws currently prohibit nuclear power plants, and most state governments maintain legal bans on their construction.
Proponents of nuclear power, mainly voices within the federal Coalition - what’s left of it - and some industry commentators, argue that Australia’s future energy mix should include nuclear alongside renewables. Their basic case is that nuclear power offers reliable, low-emission baseload electricity that could help stabilise the grid as fossil fuels are phased out. They point to the energy crunch that has led to sharply rising electricity costs for consumers, and to the fact that other countries are turning to advanced nuclear technologies. On this view, small modular reactors or large nuclear plants could provide a steady supply of power in a way that intermittent wind and solar cannot, bolstering energy security while decarbonising the grid.
Politically, the nuclear debate has become a defining contrast between the major parties. The Coalition has at times floated ambitious, if vague, plans to lift the moratorium on nuclear electricity generation and build a fleet of reactors, with proposals for seven sites on former coal power-station locations. In response, critics within Federal Labor and state governments argue that these plans ignore fundamental realities about cost, timing and community opposition. Chris Bowen described nuclear power as “too expensive, too slow to build and too risky for energy reliability”.
A central fault line in the debate is the timeframe for implementation. Serious analysis, including an interim report from a parliamentary select committee, concluded that nuclear plants in Australia could not realistically be operational before the 2040s or 2050s, given the need to repeal existing bans, establish regulatory frameworks and build these things from scratch. This timeline clashes with Australia’s legally binding emissions-reduction targets and net-zero commitments, which require urgent action in this decade.
Cost is another critical battleground. Independent modelling by the CSIRO and others suggests that nuclear power is not currently the lowest-cost way to cut electricity-sector emissions, and that its long lead times make it an ineffective tool for meeting near-term climate targets. Unlike solar and wind, whose costs have plummeted and which can be deployed rapidly, nuclear projects around the world are notorious for cost overruns and delays.
Environmental and community groups, as well as many energy market experts, emphasise these economic barriers as a key reason to reject nuclear power. Groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation argue that nuclear energy is expensive, slow, and risky, and could require substantial government subsidies, diverting investment away from proven renewable technologies. They also point out that building nuclear plants would demand lengthy legislative changes, given the current legal prohibitions across all states and territories, meaning that reactors could not be built before 2040 at the earliest, long after coal closures begin forcing the need for new generation.
Safety, waste and environmental risk remain potent themes in public objections. Although modern nuclear technologies are safer than earlier generations, the legacy of disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima continues to shape public perceptions. Opponents argue that radioactive waste management has never been solved in any country in a way that fully satisfies community concerns, and that Australia should not be taking on these burdens when alternative pathways exist. The discussion about uranium mining, particularly in sensitive areas such as Kakadu National Park, shows how environmental and indigenous rights issues are entwined with nuclear debates. Past records of leaks and spills at mining sites are often cited by opponents as evidence of the industry’s material and health risks. (Wikipedia)
There is also a philosophical element to the debate. Many Australians see nuclear power as unnecessary, given the rapid expansion of renewable energy technologies that are already producing electricity at lower cost and without radioactive waste. Experts such as renewable advocates dismiss the nuclear conversation as politically driven, likening it to an obsolete technology, akin to carrying film cameras in a digital age, that simply doesn’t make sense in the face of mature and ever-cheaper solar, wind and storage solutions.
Pursuing nuclear would not only delay climate action but also saddle Australians with expensive infrastructure that yields little practical benefit in the critical years ahead. In the context of urgent climate commitments and technological momentum behind renewables, the case against nuclear remains compelling.